G.C. Lingerie Corp. of Alabama

690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its plant in Fall River, Massachusetts, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 10 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Direc- tor for the First Region, shall, after being signed by a duly authorized agent of Re- spondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Respondent shall take reasonable pre- cautions to prevent such notices from being altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.11 It is further recommended that, unless within the prescribed period Respondent notifies said Regional Director, in writing, that it will comply with the foregoing Recommended Order, the National Labor Relations Board issue an Order requiring the Respondent to take the aforesaid action. 20 If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "A Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Decision and Order." 11 If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in United Furniture Workers of Amer- ica, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by refusing to grant Americo Ramos or any other employee a leave of absence or in any manner discriminat- ing against our employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any other term or condition of employment. HARVEY PROBBER, INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date thereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Boston Five Cents Savings Bank Building, 24 School Street, Boston, Massachusetts, Tele- phone No. 523-8100, if they have any question concerning this notice or if they have information that its provisions are being violated. G.C. Lingerie Corporation of Alabama , Respondent and Inter- national Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, Charg- ing Party. Case No. 10-CA-5379. April 7, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER On December 13, 1963, Trial Examiner Jerry B. Stone issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and 146 NLRB No. 86. G.C. LINGERIE CORPORATION OF ALABAMA 691 recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain af- firmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's De- cision. Thereafter, the Respondent and the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and briefs in support thereof. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner with the following modifications. We agree with the Trial Examiner, for the reasons stated in his Decision, that Respondent, through Plant Manager Chavkin, violated Section 8(a) (1), (3), and (4) of the Act by refusing, on May 21, 1963, to consider Hazel King for reinstatement. However, we do not consider appropriate the recommended remedy as to King. On or about August 14, 1963, in an attempt to settle the case, Re- spondent reinstated King to a job other than, but substantially equiv- alent' to, the one she normally performed. The Trial Examiner nevertheless was apparently of the opinion that some other equivalent employment may have been available at an earlier date. He there- fore recommended that Respondent offer to reinstate King to the same or substantially equivalent position in which she would have been em- ployed absent the discrimination against her if such position became available on or after May 21, 1963, and prior to August 14, 1963. He further recommended that Respondent be directed to make King whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered during that period. The General Counsel conceded at the hearing that the pretrial in- vestigation conducted by the Regional Office of the Board revealed that no jobs for which King could have qualified were available be- tween May 21, the date of the discrimination, and August 14, the date i The Respondent has excepted to credibility findings made by the Trial Examiner. As it is the Board's established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions with re- spect to credibility unless, as is not the case here , the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect, we find insufficient basis for disturbing the Trial Examiner's credibility findings. Standard Dry Wall Prod- uct8, Inc, 91 NLRB 544 , enfd. 188 F. 2d 362 (C.A. 3). 2 Prior to her absence due to an injury , King's work chiefly consisted of operating the buttonhole machine Her reinstatement was to the overlock machine. No evidence was presented to show that the latter was a less desirable or less lucrative position than the former. The evidence was undisputed , however, that buttonhole work was slack during the period in question and that it continued so at the time of the hearing. As noted by the Trial Examiner, Respondent generally exercised flexibility in the assignment of work to recalled employees. 692 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ,of the reinstatement. Under these circumstances, we find it would serve no useful purpose for us to adopt that portion of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order requiring King's reinstatement and backpay. ORDER The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner with the following modifications : 1. Amend paragraph 1(a) to read as follows : Discriminating in the consideration of employment opportunities, or the employment thereof, or in any like or related manner discriminating against its employees or applicants for employ- ment because they have participated in the filing or processing of unfair labor practice charges within the meaning of the Act. 2. Amend paragraph 2 by deleting therefrom subparagraphs 2(a), 2(b),and2(c). 3. Amend paragraphs 2(d) and 2(e) by renumbering them to read 2 (a) and 2 (b), respectively. 4. Amend the first paragraph of the Appendix attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision to conform to paragraph 1(a) of the Order, as amended above. 5. Amend the Appendix by deleting paragraphs 2 and 3 thereof. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge filed on June 24, 1963, by International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO (herein sometimes called the Union), the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued his complaint dated July 12, 1963, against G.C. Lingerie Corporation of Alabama (herein sometimes called the Respondent , Employer, or the Company). In substance the complaint alleged that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in conduct proscribed by Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act (herein called the Act), and that such conduct affected, and was affecting commerce as set forth in Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Respond- ent's answer admits many of the facts pleaded in the complaint but denies the com- mission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to appropriate notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Jerry B. Stone at Florence, Alabama, on September 30, 1963. All parties were represented at and participated in the hearing and were afforded the right to present evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to offer oral arguments, and to file briefs. Briefs have been received from the Respondent and the Charging Party and have been considered. At the commencement of the hearing in this matter Respondent's counsel moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis that he had entered into a "settlement agree- ment" of the matter on August 12, 1963 , with the assistant to the Regional Director of the Tenth Region , and that thereafter the Respondent had complied with the "settlement agreement." i Despite Respondent's assertion to the effect that the Regional Director must have approved the agreement or otherwise the assistant to the Regional Director would not have proposed the same, and that the Regional Director had settled other similar cases without written agreements , I find nothing 1 The Respondent by letter of August 12, 1963, offered King employment King received the offer of employment on August 14, 1963, returned to work on August 15, 1963, and was placed at work on a job other than the one she had normally filled. G.C. LINGERIE CORPORATION OF ALABAMA 693 in Respondent's motion or his averment of facts to reveal that the Respondent or his counsel was ever told that the Regional Director had approved the "settlement agreement," or that the Regional Director in fact approved the "settlement agree- ment." In fact Respondent's witness Chavkin testified relative to why he took King back as follows: A. The reason I took her back was because Mr. Prowell said under those conditions he thought he could settle the case. [Emphasis supplied.] Even assuming that the Regional Director had approved the alleged oral "settlement agreement," the motion and averment of fact do not reveal that the alleged "settle- ment agreement" remedies 2 the violations alleged in the complaint (in the instant matter) nor that the Charging Party has been accorded its administrative due process rights. Under such circumstances, I adhere to my ruling at the hearing denying the motion to dismiss the complaint .3 Upon the entire record 4 in this case, and from my observation of the witnesses, the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations are made .5 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Based upon the pleadings, it is found that G.C. Lingerie Corporation of Alabama, the Respondent, is and has been at all times material herein an Alabama corporation maintaining its principal office and place of business at Town Creek where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of women's apparel. The Respondent, during a 12-month representative period, sells and ships products valued in excess of $50,000 from its place of business in Alabama directly to customers located outside the State of Alabama. The evidence also reveals that the Respondent employs various employees in its aforesaid operations. I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and in connection with the acts described in section III of this report that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Based upon the pleadings , it is found that International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Preliminary background 6 Hazel King commenced work for the Respondent in September 1958 and worked regularly for the Respondent until January 21, 1963. In the latter part of July 1962 the Union filed a charge in Case No. 10-CA-5060 alleging in effect that the Re- spondent had engaged in acts violative of Section 8(a)(1) and ( 3) in that the Re- spondent had on or about June 29, 1962, discriminated with regard to the hire or tenure of employment of Hazel King and two other persons in order to discourage membership in a labor organization, and that the Employer had interfered with, 2 The averred "settlement agreement" merely provided that the Respondent would offer immediate employment to Hazel King. - 3 See United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada (AFL), Local 106, et at (Columbia-Southern Chemical Corporation), 110 NLRB 206, 221 ; Mslweukee Nash Company, etc, 105 NLRB 684. The facts in Sherry & Gordon Company, Inc, 107 NLRB 113, are distinguishable in that the respondent in that case was told by the field examiner (NLRB) that the Regional Director had approved the withdrawal of charges 4 The Charging Party's motion to correct the record at transcript page 236, line 19, by changing "1962" to "1963" is granted , 5 All credibility resolutions made with respect to the witnesses' testimony are based on a composite evaluation of witness demeanor and logical consistency of the evidence. 6 Based upon undisputed facts and a composite of the credited testimony of King and Chavkin. The cross-examination of King seemed directed to establish that King engaged In union activity prior to July 24, 1962. I find her testimony to be credible in her ex- planation of not engaging in union activity prior to July 24 , 1962. As indicated previ- ously my credibility resolutions in part are based on the demeanor of the various witnesses. 694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. On May 30, 1962, Hazel King, in effect, told Plant Manager Chavkin that she had had nothing to do with the Union. Later, on July 24, 1962, Hazel King in effect told Chavkin that she had had nothing to do with the Union or the National Labor Relations Board. Hazel King, until sometime after July 24, 1962, did not engage in union activity nor had she been in contact with the National Labor Relations Board. After July 24, 1962, Hazel King did engage in union activity and was in contact with the National Labor Relations Board. On September 13, 1962, the Acting Regional Director for the Tenth Region of the National Labor Rela- tions Board approved a written informal settlement agreement wherein it was agreed that the agreement did not constitute admission or evidence of any violation by the Employer of the Act. The settlement agreement provided that the Respondent would post an attached "Notice To All Employees" and comply with the terms of provisions of the notice. The remedial language of the notice was that normally used by the Board to remedy 8 (a) (1) type violations and not that normally used by the Board to remedy an 8(a)(3) type violation? In the meantime it came to Chavkin's atten- tion that Hazel King (who worked on piece rate) was complaining about not receiving the right amount of work. On September 14, 1962,$ around 9:30 a.m. (break time) employee Nora Belle Hendrix came to King's work station and told King that she had been told by a girl that King was going to beat her (Hendrix) up on the way home. King told Hendrix that this was not so, and that if she (Hendrix) would show her the girl, that she would tell her. Hendrix told King that she (King) was taking girls off in her car and forc- ing them to sign union cards. The conversation between King and Hendrix was loud and boisterous and a number of employees were gathered around them .9 About this time Plant Manager Chavkin came to where King and Hendrix were and at- tempted to end the argument. A policeman stopped the argument by leading Hendrix away.1° Chavkin told King that while things were being straightened out, that he wanted to get something straightened out, that King was 1 girl out of 365 that had told him a "God damn lie." King told Chavkin that she had not lied to him, and if he thought she lied why he did not lay her off. Chavkin said that he did not want to lay King off, that her work was satisfactory, but that he did not like the "God damn lies " King told Chavkin that at the time that she had told him that she had not had anything to do with the Board that she had not had anything to do with it. Chavkin reheated that she had lied, and stated that the "girls and the people in Town Creek, had built that place" and the King was one girl that was trying to tear it down. Chavkin told King to report this to her "God damned Labor Relations Board." On January 21,11 1963, King was injured in an automobile accident and was unable to report to work until around April 30, 1963. In the meantime she asked a fellow emnloyee to report this fact to the Respondent. There is no contention that the fact of King's accident or injury was ever made known to Respondent until April 30, 1963. Nor is there evidence that King concerned herself otherwise with getting the informa- tion of her injury and unavailability to work to the Respondent.12 7 Other background evidence pertaining to "employer conduct" preceding the settlement agreement has not been considered, following the Board's policv not to consider such evidence of presettlement conduct unless the Respondent has failed to comply with the settlement agreement or has engaged in independent unfair labor practices since the settlement Moreover, in determining whether such independent unfair labor practices have occurred after the settlement, the Board will not appraise a respondent's post- settlement conduct in the light of its conduct prior to the settlement . See Tompkins Motor Lines, Inc., 142 NLRB 1. s The events of September 14, 1962, are based on a composite of the credited testimony of King, West, and Chavkin. As Indicated, I find King's version of the September 14, 1962, conversation more credible than Chavkin's. Chavkin's testimony on cross-examination with respect to the September 14. 1962 event was very confused ; I find such testimony of his as is contradictory of the facts set out herein to be unreliable and do not credit. Thus I do not credit that be called King a liar about "work," nor do I credit his denial that he referred to the National Labor Relations Board. 9I am convinced that much more was said than is revealed by the testimony. 10 The circumstances of the policeman's being present were not explained by the testimony n The events of January 21 through April 30, 1963, are based on a composite of credited testimony by King and Chavkin. 12 The record reveals that King is married and that she has a telephone at her home. G.C. LINGERIE CORPORATION OF ALABAMA 695 King was released by her attending physician on or about April 30, 1963, and called Plant Manager Chavkin and told him that she had been released and was ready to return to work. Chavkin told King that buttons and buttonholes 13 were in bad shape but that he would call her back to work as soon as work picked up. The Union, on May 16, 1963, filed a charge in Case No. 10-CA-5329 with the National Labor Relations Board alleging in effect that the Respondent was violat- ing Section 8(a) (1) and (3) by discriminatorily failing and refusing to rehire or re- employ Hazel King since on or about May 13, 1963. B. Events of May 21, 1963 On or about May 21,14 1963, Hazel King went to Respondent's plant and saw Plant Manager Chavkin in his office. King asked for her job back. Chavkin told King that he did not have any openings. Chavkin asked King why she had not let him know that she was sick, had an accident, or whatever was wrong. King told Chavkin that she thought he would find out about it from the girls. Chavkin asked King if she had given anyone permission to file charges against the Company. King replied that she had not, that she had not come to start an argument with him. Chavkin asked, "Just what did you come down here for?" King replied that she had come to talk about going back to work. Chavkin stated, "After all of these months you have been off you come back and expect me to give your job back." King told Chavkin that she thought he knew she was in an accident. Chavkin stated that he had not known anything about it, and asked why King had not called him and let him know. King replied that she had been in a hospital and unable to call. Chavkin asked if King had a husband. King replied thaa she had but that her husband had been under the impression that Chavkin knew of the accident. Chavkin told King that he had been in an accident and had sent his brother to work in his place. King stated again that she was not there to start an argument. Chavkin again asked King why she was there and she replied that she was there to talk about going back to work. Chavkin told King he had two questions to ask her. Chavkin then asked King if she had given anyone permission to file charges against the Company. King started answering to the effect that she had not signed a paper for the Union. Chavkin told her to answer "yes" or "no" or just to forget about it. King told Chavkin that she had signed a paper for the Union. Chavkin went,to his desk, picked up the charge in Case No. 10-CA-5329, and asked if this was not the charge that she had given the Union permission to file. King replied, "No." Chavkin asked King if she would sign an affidavit to that effect. King replied that she had signed a paper for the Union to use her name. Chavkin then asked if King thought the charge was true. King answered that the Respondent had taken other girls back. Plant Manager Chavkin told King that if that were the case, that he did not have any open- ings, that as far as the charges were concerned that she would have to take it up with the Union and they could handle it with his lawyers. Considering all the foregoing, I am convinced that: (1) Plant Manager Chavkin was not angry or concerned on April 30, 1963, by the fact that King had not previously notified him of her January 1963 accident and injury and inability to work; (2) Chavkin on April 30, 1963, considered King's status to be that of a "laid off" employee to be recalled when work picked up; and (3) Chavkin's attitude toward the recall of King changed between April 30, 1963, and May 21, 1963. 13 The job to which she was normally assigned prior to January 21, 1963. 14 The events of May 21, 1963, are based on a composite of credited testimony by King, Chavkin, Bryant, and Morlan and admissions contained in a sworn statement of Chavkin (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 2). It,is clear that the events of May 21, 1963, took place in an aura of excitement, and none of the witnesses impressed me as remembering all the details I am convinced that the truth is reflected in a composite of their stories. The witnesses' testimony contradictory of the,facts set out is discredited. As indicated, my credibility resolutions herein are based on a composite of an evaluation of the witnesses' demeanor and the consistency of the facts. To some extent each witness impressed me as trying to present the best story from his view I credit Chavkin's testimony to the extent that King first denied having given anyone permission to file charges over her denial. I discredit King's testimony to the effect that Chavkin told her at the end of the con- versation after discussion of the charges and statements that he had no job for her now or in the future. I. also discredit Chavkin's, , Morlan's, and Bryant's testimony to the same matter to the effect that Chavkin said "right now," "at present," or "at the present time" that there were no, openings for King. Considering all the witnesses' demeanor, all the evidence, and Chavkin's sworn statement, I am convinced that Chavkin told King in effect that if that were the case that he did not have any openings. 696 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Chavkin clearly revealed to King that he was unfavorably disposed to recall her by his remarks about her failure to notify him in January 1963 of her accident and injuries. The only intervening circumstances in the record to explain Chavkin's change in attitude from April 30 to May 21, 1963, is the receipt (several days before May 21 , 1963 ) by Chavkin of the unfair labor charges in Case No 10-CA-5329. Additionally Chavkin revealed his concern over said charges and King's activity in connection with said charges by his questions concerning the charges directed to her. Plant Manager Chavkin's statement to King, after learning that she had signed a paper for the Union and that she thought the charges were true , was to the effect that if that were true that he did not have any openings. Considering the foregoing and all the evidence, I am convinced that Plant Manager Chavkin , on May 21, 1963, decided that King would no longer be considered for recall to work because (1) charges had been filed and (2 ) King had signed a paper for the Union in Case No. 10-CA-5329 in support of this charge . I thus conclude and find that the Respondent discriminated on May 21 , 1963, in its consideration of King for employment in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3 ), and (4 ) of the Act.15 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY The General Counsel stated at the hearing that he was not contending that the Respondent should be ordered to "reinstate" King or to award King backpay. This would appear to be on the theory that Respondent's offer of work to King and her acceptance of employment around August 14, 1963, had removed this from the area of unfair labor practice effects necessitating remedy. The Charging Party contends that reinstatement and a backpay award is in order. Some evidence pertaining to specific reinstatement and backpay remedy was adduced, but in my opinion such evidence is insufficient to merit a substantial deviation from the type of remedy utilized by the Board in the Shawnee Industries, Inc., etc., 140 NLRB 1451. The evidence reveals that Respondent exercised flexi- bility in assignment of work to recall employees. I do not think it proper therefore to construe that Respondent's consideration of King for employment, absent the discrimination against her, would have been limited to those jobs normally per- formed by her. In any event the question of available jobs and amount of backpay can more properly be determined in the compliance stage Having found that the Respondent has engaged in"certain unfair labor practices, it is recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent discriminated against King with respect to her status as an applicant for employment, it is recommended that Respondent offer her immediate employment, to the extent that it may not have been done, in the same or substantially equivalent position at which she would have been employed absent the discrimination against her if such position became available on or after May 21, 1963. It is further recommended that Respondent make King whole for any loss of earnings suffered by her as a result of the discrimination against her by payment to her a sum'of money equal to that which she would have earned from the date after the' discrimination when a job for which she was qualified became available until the date of such offer, less her net earnings during the period. Such backpay shall be computed on a quarterly basis as provided in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. Interest at the rate of 6 percent per anum shall be added to said back- pay to be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co, 139 NLRB 716. 15 Shawnee Industries, Inc., etc., 140 NLRB 1451 . Contrary to Respondent's contention, the instant case reveals that King's application for employment was considered for future openings on April 30, 1963, and that her status as an employee to be called to work upon availability of work was established , and that this status on May 21 , 1963 , had been ad- versely changed because of discriminatory reasons Southern Cotton Oil Crude Mill, etc., 144 NLRB 959, cited by the Respondent, is factually distinguishable from the present case. G.C. LINGERIE CORPORATION OF ALABAMA 697 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, is and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 3. By discriminating with regard to the consideration of employability of Hazel King, thereby discouraging the utilization by employees of labor organization fa- cilities and the utilization of rights guaranteed employees under Section 7 and Section 8(a)(4) of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER 16 Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, it is recommended that Respondent, G.C. Lingerie Corporation of Alabama, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 17 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discriminating in the consideration of employment opportunities, or the em- ployment thereof, or in any other manner discriminating against its employees or applicants for employment because they have participated in connection with the filing or processing of an unfair labor practice charge filed within the meaning of the Act. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Offer Hazel King immediate employment without prejudice to her seniority and other rights and privileges, to the extent that it may not have been done, in the same or substantially equivalent position at which she would have been employed absent the discrimination against her if such position became available on or after May 21, 1963, and prior to August 14, 1963. (b) Make Hazel King whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered because of the discrimination against her, and in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy." (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board and its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time- cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records relevant or necessary to the determination of the amount of backpay due and to the reinstatement and re- lated rights provided under the terms of this Recommended Order. (d) Post at its Town Creek, Alabama, plant, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 18 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, Atlanta, Georgia, shall, after being signed by the Respondent's rep- resentative, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main- tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. 11 In the event that this Recommended Order he adopted by the Board, the word "Order" shall be deemed substituted for the words "Recommended Order " 17 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the following paragraph shall be deemed substituted for this first paragraph of the Recommended Order: Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent, Its officers, agents, successors, and assigns , shall: 181n the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Decision and Order." 698 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (e) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.'° 1s In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discriminate in the consideration of employment opportunities, or the employment thereof, or in any other manner discriminate against our employees, because they have participated in connection with the filing or proc- essing of an unfair labor practice charge filed within the meaning of the Act. WE WILL offer Hazel King immediate employment, without prejudice to her seniority and other rights and privileges to the extent that it may not have been done, in the same or substantially equivalent position at which she would have been employed absent the discrimination against her if such position became available on or after May 21, 1963, and prior to August 14, 1963. WE WILL make Hazel King whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against her. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. G.C. LINGERIE CORPORATION OF ALABAMA, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 528 Peachtree-Seventh Building, 50 Seventh Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia, Telephone No. 876-3311, Extension 5357, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Harder's Construction Company, Respondent and Russell Dan- ford, Charging Party, Virgil P. Sears, Charging Party, Will R. Rasco, Charging Party, Porter M. King, Charging Party and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Pile Drivers Local 438, Party to the Contract United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Pile Drivers Local 438, Respondent and Russell Danford , Charging Party and Virgil Sears, Charging Party and Will R. Rasco, Charging Party and Porter M. King, Charging Party and Harder's Construction Company , Party to the Contract. Cases Nos. 15-CA-29272-1, 15-CA-92272-9, 15-CA-°227?-3, 15-CA-9313, 15-CB-630, 15-CB-644, 15-CB-646, and 15-CB-660. April 7, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER On September 24, 1963, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that the Re- 146 NLRB No. 83.